Orthodox like the chancellor of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Leo Sapiega?

"By thoughtless violence you oppress the Russian people and urge them on to revolt. You are aware of the censure of the simple people, that it would be better to be in Turkish captivity than to endure such persecutions for faith and piety. You write that you freely drown the Orthodox, chop off their heads, and profane their churches. You seal their churches so the people, without piety and Christian rites, are buried like non-Christians. In place of joy, your cunning Uniatism has brought us only woe, unrest, and conflict. We would prefer to be without it. These are the fruits of your Uniatism. It would have been better not to have given us nationwide strife and hatred, and instead to have preserved us from nationwide condemnation."

March 12, 1622Letter of Leo Sapiega, Chancellor of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Representative of the Polish Crown addressed to Iosaphat Kuntsevich

Interresting that you mention the Poles quest to Latinize the Ukrainians then quote the letter of the Polish Latin Catholic Chancellor. St Josaphat was equally hated by the Orthodox, for being united to Rome, and the Polish Latins, for refusing to Latinize or Polonize, so why would it be surprising that a Polish Latin official would do a hatchet job on him to make him look bad? If we discount Orthodox and Catholic propaganda the only neutral group, the Jews spoke favorably of St.Josaphat and testified on his behalf.

The article in wikipedia is quite favorable to St. Josaphat. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josaphat_KuncevycOne thing mentioned in the article was that St. Josaphat had successfully converted the Patriarch of Moscow, Ignatius, 1540-1620 to Catholicism. Ignatius was Orthodox Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia from 1605-1606, and originally was a fierce opponent of Catholicism. Perhaps the later conversion of the Russian Orthodox Patriarch to Byz. Catholicism by St. Josaphat has something to do with why there is so much opposition to St. Josaphat from the Orthodox point of view?

One thing mentioned in the article was that St. Josaphat had successfully converted the Patriarch of Moscow, Ignatius, 1540-1620 to Catholicism. Ignatius was Orthodox Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia from 1605-1606, and originally was a fierce opponent of Catholicism. Perhaps the later conversion of the Russian Orthodox Patriarch to Byz. Catholicism by St. Josaphat has something to do with why there is so much opposition to St. Josaphat from the Orthodox point of view?

Of course Ignatius was not Russian but a Greek, a Cretan, and we all know Saint Paul's opinion of Cretans.

Anyway he seems to have been a total political disaster for Russia. Maybe he had been sent into Russia by Russia's enemies to destabilise the country?

Of course Ignatius was not Russian but a Greek, a Cretan, and we all know Saint Paul's opinion of Cretans.

This would seem to be a reason to reject Ignatius as Orthodox Patriarch on purely racial grounds? His poor reputation would then be based on his race and would not have anything to do with the fact that he was later converted to Byz. Catholicism by St. Josaphat?

Of course Ignatius was not Russian but a Greek, a Cretan, and we all know Saint Paul's opinion of Cretans.

This would seem to be a reason to reject Ignatius as Orthodox Patriarch on purely racial grounds? His poor reputation would then be based on his race and would not have anything to do with the fact that he was later converted to Byz. Catholicism by St. Josaphat?

His Wiki biography says that not once but twice, he tried to impose a false Tsar on the Russian Throne. The second time he had to hightail it to Poland or risk lengthy imprisonment. If Kuntsevich liked to convert people of this calibre he is welcome to them.

Of course Ignatius was not Russian but a Greek, a Cretan, and we all know Saint Paul's opinion of Cretans.

This would seem to be a reason to reject Ignatius as Orthodox Patriarch on purely racial grounds? His poor reputation would then be based on his race and would not have anything to do with the fact that he was later converted to Byz. Catholicism by St. Josaphat?

His Wiki biography says that not once but twice, he tried to impose a false Tsar on the Russian Throne. The second time he had to hightail it to Poland or risk lengthy imprisonment. If Kuntsevich liked to convert people of this calibre he is welcome to them.

but why was he chosen to be Orthodox Patriarch of all Russia in the first place?

I know nothing about him. As the Wiki article says:

Ignatius "....suffered from damnatio memoriae in subsequent ages and often is not counted among the legitimate patriarchs by the Russian Orthodox Church."

OK Father Ambrose.But let's look at it this way. Suppose a Roman Pope had converted to Russian Orthodoxy. I would guess that the Roman Catholic Church would not give him a sterling writeup in their history books.

but why was he chosen to be Orthodox Patriarch of all Russia in the first place?

I know nothing about him. As the Wiki article says:

Ignatius "....suffered from damnatio memoriae in subsequent ages and often is not counted among the legitimate patriarchs by the Russian Orthodox Church."

OK Father Ambrose.But let's look at it this way. Suppose a Roman Pope had converted to Russian Orthodoxy. I would guess that the Roman Catholic Church would not give him a sterling writeup in their history books.

The attempt to impose two false Tsars on Russia in spoken if in Wikipedia - not in a Russian Orthodox publication. It must be a fact of secular history?

Somewhere here I posted links to all the "St. Joasaphat" Churches I could find. All were Polish Latin ones. The first Ukrainian one was a parish in Western Canada which grew out of a French parish St. Joachim. For now, wikipedia will have to do:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._josaphat#Legacy

The US Ukrainian Catholics have a Cathedral in Parma, OH and parishes in New Britain, CT; Rochester, NY; Philadelphia, PA; Bethlehem, PA; Munster,IN; and Warren MI.

He is also commemorated in every proskomedia and litija litany in the Ruthenian and Ukrainian Catholic Churches.

Is now: how far back does that go?

The parishes you mention all date from after the Edmonton Ukrainian cathedral (1904), the Poles started dedicating churches to him in the 1880's in Chicago, Milwaukee etc. What the situation in Europe I do not know, but would be interesting. You have any info.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Of course Ignatius was not Russian but a Greek, a Cretan, and we all know Saint Paul's opinion of Cretans.

This would seem to be a reason to reject Ignatius as Orthodox Patriarch on purely racial grounds? His poor reputation would then be based on his race and would not have anything to do with the fact that he was later converted to Byz. Catholicism by St. Josaphat?

He is not even counted in the official list of patriarchs. Unlike the editing of the lists of popes of Rome, such editing causes no dogmatic concerns.

Since the Russian Church had obtained autocephaly by default when Constantinople embraced heresy at Florence, the Russians had been masters of their own house for nearly two centuries. That a foreignor was picked, after the legitimate patriarch St. Job had been deposed by force by a usurper seizing the throne, raises questions about Ignatius serving that power (whom he crowned, and for whom he had taken oaths of allegience even before seizing the throne), rather than the Church. That he converted when the occupying Poles freed him in Moscow (where he was imprisoned when legitimate authority was restored), and he retreated with them.

Of course Ignatius was not Russian but a Greek, a Cretan, and we all know Saint Paul's opinion of Cretans.

This would seem to be a reason to reject Ignatius as Orthodox Patriarch on purely racial grounds? His poor reputation would then be based on his race and would not have anything to do with the fact that he was later converted to Byz. Catholicism by St. Josaphat?

His Wiki biography says that not once but twice, he tried to impose a false Tsar on the Russian Throne. The second time he had to hightail it to Poland or risk lengthy imprisonment. If Kuntsevich liked to convert people of this calibre he is welcome to them.

but why was he chosen to be Orthodox Patriarch of all Russia in the first place?

To serve as false patriarch to a false czar. Birds of a feather...

« Last Edit: May 18, 2010, 08:23:11 AM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

but why was he chosen to be Orthodox Patriarch of all Russia in the first place?

I know nothing about him. As the Wiki article says:

Ignatius "....suffered from damnatio memoriae in subsequent ages and often is not counted among the legitimate patriarchs by the Russian Orthodox Church."

OK Father Ambrose.But let's look at it this way. Suppose a Roman Pope had converted to Russian Orthodoxy. I would guess that the Roman Catholic Church would not give him a sterling writeup in their history books.

I don't know, ya'll bend over backwards to exonerate Honorius I, who coverted to heresy. Of course, given Vatican I, if a Roman Pope converted to Russian Orthodoxy, the RCC would return to Catholic unity, and I should think that that would be as celebrated at least as much as the false unions of Brest, Uzhhorod, Transylvania, etc. are celebrated by the Vatican today

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Since the Russian Church had obtained autocephaly by default when Constantinople embraced heresy at Florence, the Russians had been masters of their own house for nearly two centuries. That a foreignor was picked, after the legitimate patriarch St. Job had been deposed by force by a usurper seizing the throne, raises questions about Ignatius serving that power (whom he crowned, and for whom he had taken oaths of allegience even before seizing the throne), rather than the Church.

It also raises questions about who is in charge of the Russian Orthodox Church and how was it that he assumed the office of Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia? Who is the final authority in the Russian Orthodox Church?

Then they're not in substantial union with Rome. Those who think that they can be "in communion" with Rome but differ from her dogmatic tradition are fools.

Amen

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the same supposed saint whose body is said to now reside in Rome? One has to wonder how that is so since we Orthodox are accused of hacking it to pieces before throwing it into the river! Does that mean it miraculous reassembled itself in the river?Orthodoc

There is talk of moving the relics or at least part of them to the Basilian Monastery of the Holy Trinity in Vilnius, Lithuania once the restoration work is complete. St. Josaphat was abbot of the monastery.

Although Saint Josaphat was killed by an axe to the head, he was never cut to pieces.

The Apostate Isodore the Greek is listed as St. Jonas' predecessor in Moscow. So I guess that's not it.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Since the Russian Church had obtained autocephaly by default when Constantinople embraced heresy at Florence, the Russians had been masters of their own house for nearly two centuries. That a foreignor was picked, after the legitimate patriarch St. Job had been deposed by force by a usurper seizing the throne, raises questions about Ignatius serving that power (whom he crowned, and for whom he had taken oaths of allegience even before seizing the throne), rather than the Church.

It also raises questions about who is in charge of the Russian Orthodox Church and how was it that he assumed the office of Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia? Who is the final authority in the Russian Orthodox Church?

That's quite settled: the Holy Synod of Russia, headed by her patriarch, under Christ the supreme Head. As for the elevation to patriarch, that was done with the consensus of all the Orthodox patriarchs of the time.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

You ought to read some of the documentation for the canonization of Ioasaphat Kuntsevich.

Read what the Roman Catholic Chancellor for Lithuania, Leo Sapiega, wrote of Josaphat. I won't post it here because it may ignite a firestorm but there was a dark and malevolent side to Josaphat acknowledged even by the Roman Catholic authorities of his time.

Irish Hermit,I would like to recommend the book, Saint Josaphat Kuntsevych: Apostle of Church Unity by Fr. Demetrius E. Wysochansky, OSBM. It is the most comprehensive book on the life of Saint Josaphat in English. Included are Saint Josaphat’s replies to Sapiega, denying any involvement in harming Orthodox Christians. Also, the book goes on to say that Sapiega severely punished those who killed Saint Josaphat and the people of Vitebsk felt they were being punished by God for the death of this holy saint. The book also quotes from the sworn testimonies given by eyewitnesses to Saint Josapahat's holiness during the canonization process. Included are the testimonies of Orthodox Christians who persecuted him and yet defended his holiness.

As for the elevation to patriarch, that was done with the consensus of all the Orthodox patriarchs of the time.

So the Orthodox patriarchs chose Ignatius as Patriarch of all Russia. I suppose at that time everyone thought him to be a sterling and excellent choice for the office and had only good things to say about his character and qualifications? And now since he was later converted by St. Josaphat to Catholicism, we only hear bad things about him and about St. Josaphat?

As for the elevation to patriarch, that was done with the consensus of all the Orthodox patriarchs of the time.

So the Orthodox patriarchs chose Ignatius as Patriarch of all Russia. I suppose at that time everyone thought him to be a sterling and excellent choice for the office and had only good things to say about his character and qualifications? And now since he was later converted by St. Josaphat to Catholicism, we only hear bad things about him and about St. Josaphat?

No, the Orthodox patriarchs elevated St. Job, who was already metropolitan of Moscow.

Ignatius was chose by the false Dmitry and installed by him: false praise from a false Czar for a false patriarch who went over to a false faith.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

You ought to read some of the documentation for the canonization of Ioasaphat Kuntsevich.

Read what the Roman Catholic Chancellor for Lithuania, Leo Sapiega, wrote of Josaphat. I won't post it here because it may ignite a firestorm but there was a dark and malevolent side to Josaphat acknowledged even by the Roman Catholic authorities of his time.

Irish Hermit,I would like to recommend the book, Saint Josaphat Kuntsevych: Apostle of Church Unity by Fr. Demetrius E. Wysochansky, OSBM. It is the most comprehensive book on the life of Saint Josaphat in English. Included are Saint Josaphat’s replies to Sapiega, denying any involvement in harming Orthodox Christians. Also, the book goes on to say that Sapiega severely punished those who killed Saint Josaphat and the people of Vitebsk felt they were being punished by God for the death of this holy saint. The book also quotes from the sworn testimonies given by eyewitnesses to Saint Josapahat's holiness during the canonization process. Included are the testimonies of Orthodox Christians who persecuted him and yet defended his holiness.

Such stories would be more credible if they were not so embedded in fairy tales of how the Orthodox rushed to the "Union" of Brest of their own free will and without compulsion from the PL king's sword.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

As for the elevation to patriarch, that was done with the consensus of all the Orthodox patriarchs of the time.

So the Orthodox patriarchs chose Ignatius as Patriarch of all Russia. I suppose at that time everyone thought him to be a sterling and excellent choice for the office and had only good things to say about his character and qualifications? And now since he was later converted by St. Josaphat to Catholicism, we only hear bad things about him and about St. Josaphat?

No, the Orthodox patriarchs elevated St. Job, who was already metropolitan of Moscow.

Ignatius was chose by the false Dmitry and installed by him: false praise from a false Czar for a false patriarch who went over to a false faith.

Wasn't the false Dimitry also Polish?

Orthodoc

Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.

As for the elevation to patriarch, that was done with the consensus of all the Orthodox patriarchs of the time.

So the Orthodox patriarchs chose Ignatius as Patriarch of all Russia. I suppose at that time everyone thought him to be a sterling and excellent choice for the office and had only good things to say about his character and qualifications? And now since he was later converted by St. Josaphat to Catholicism, we only hear bad things about him and about St. Josaphat?

No, the Orthodox patriarchs elevated St. Job, who was already metropolitan of Moscow.

Ignatius was chose by the false Dmitry and installed by him: false praise from a false Czar for a false patriarch who went over to a false faith.

Wasn't the false Dimitry also Polish?

Orthodoc

LOL. Yes, rumor has it an illegitimate son of the Polish king. Since he was a loyal son of the Vatican (which should have been a clue), one wonders what he had to do with an allegedly Orthodox Patriarch crowning him.

After his downfall, his ashes were shot out of a canon pointed at Poland.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

That was because he was an absolute tow rag and beneath contempt. Moscow had been conquered by the Poles. The Poles had burnt practically the entire city, including 450 churches. The Russian forces were beseiging Moscow but could not take it back from the Poles The Poles imprisoned the lawful Patriarch Hermogen. He would not play ball with them. They put Ignatius on the Patriarch's throne. He serves the Liturgy for Easter. He commemorated the Polish King as head of the Russian State. That same afternoon he fled Moscow on a fast horse to Polish Lithuania.

Put this in the American situation. The Iraqis take control of New York and bomb and burn most of the city. They imprison the Catholic Archbishop of New York and place one of their lickspittles on the cathedra as Cardinal Archbishop of New York. He celebrates Easter Mass and commemorates Saddam Hussein as head of the United States.

Since the Russian Church had obtained autocephaly by default when Constantinople embraced heresy at Florence, the Russians had been masters of their own house for nearly two centuries. That a foreignor was picked, after the legitimate patriarch St. Job had been deposed by force by a usurper seizing the throne, raises questions about Ignatius serving that power (whom he crowned, and for whom he had taken oaths of allegience even before seizing the throne), rather than the Church.

It also raises questions about who is in charge of the Russian Orthodox Church and how was it that he assumed the office of Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia? Who is the final authority in the Russian Orthodox Church?

You ought to read some of the documentation for the canonization of Ioasaphat Kuntsevich.

Read what the Roman Catholic Chancellor for Lithuania, Leo Sapiega, wrote of Josaphat. I won't post it here because it may ignite a firestorm but there was a dark and malevolent side to Josaphat acknowledged even by the Roman Catholic authorities of his time.

Irish Hermit,I would like to recommend the book, Saint Josaphat Kuntsevych: Apostle of Church Unity by Fr. Demetrius E. Wysochansky, OSBM. It is the most comprehensive book on the life of Saint Josaphat in English. Included are Saint Josaphat’s replies to Sapiega, denying any involvement in harming Orthodox Christians. Also, the book goes on to say that Sapiega severely punished those who killed Saint Josaphat and the people of Vitebsk felt they were being punished by God for the death of this holy saint. The book also quotes from the sworn testimonies given by eyewitnesses to Saint Josapahat's holiness during the canonization process. Included are the testimonies of Orthodox Christians who persecuted him and yet defended his holiness.

Such stories would be more credible if they were not so embedded in fairy tales of how the Orthodox rushed to the "Union" of Brest of their own free will and without compulsion from the PL king's sword.

Yes. One has to wonder where some people put their common sense when reading these white washed historical revision put out by the RCC. Those that are nieve enough to believe them. If St Josephat was such a loving man, why would he ellicitsuch a reaction from the Orthodox? Was it just a full moon? Or the revision of the Union of Brest where its indicated that a group if illerate people undertood enough to think that RC theology was superior! Or why they wouldn't want to accept the western Latin Rites if they were so superior!

Orthodoc

Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.

That was because he was an absolute tow rag and beneath contempt. Moscow had been conquered by the Poles. The Poles had burnt practically the entire city, including 450 churches. The Russian forces were beseiging Moscow but could not take it back from the Poles The Poles imprisoned the lawful Patriarch Hermogen. He would not play ball with them. They put Ignatius on the Patriarch's throne. He serves the Liturgy for Easter. He commemorated the Polish King as head of the Russian State. That same afternoon he fled Moscow on a fast horse to Polish Lithuania.

Put this in the American situation. The Iraqis take control of New York and bomb and burn most of the city. They imprison the Catholic Archbishop of New York and place one of their lickspittles on the cathedra as Cardinal Archbishop of New York. He celebrates Easter Mass and commemorates Saddam Hussein as head of the United States.

I am interested in the source for saying that the Poles had put Ignatius as Patriarch? I thought that it was Feodor II of Russia, the son of Boris Godunov, who had appointed him patriarch, with the consent of the Orthodox bishops, on June 30, 1605? It seems to me quite unlikely that the Poles would endorse a fierce opponent of Catholicism, such as Ignatius was at that time of June 30, 1605.

That was because he was an absolute tow rag and beneath contempt. Moscow had been conquered by the Poles. The Poles had burnt practically the entire city, including 450 churches. The Russian forces were beseiging Moscow but could not take it back from the Poles The Poles imprisoned the lawful Patriarch Hermogen. He would not play ball with them. They put Ignatius on the Patriarch's throne. He serves the Liturgy for Easter. He commemorated the Polish King as head of the Russian State. That same afternoon he fled Moscow on a fast horse to Polish Lithuania.

Put this in the American situation. The Iraqis take control of New York and bomb and burn most of the city. They imprison the Catholic Archbishop of New York and place one of their lickspittles on the cathedra as Cardinal Archbishop of New York. He celebrates Easter Mass and commemorates Saddam Hussein as head of the United States.

I am interested in the source for saying that the Poles had put Ignatius as Patriarch? I thought that it was Feodor II of Russia, the son of Boris Godunov, who had appointed him patriarch, with the consent of the Orthodox bishops, on June 30, 1605? It seems to me quite unlikely that the Poles would endorse a fierce opponent of Catholicism, such as Ignatius was at that time of June 30, 1605.

Oh here we go!! More of that revisionist Catholic white-wash history!!....Really!!

That was because he was an absolute tow rag and beneath contempt. Moscow had been conquered by the Poles. The Poles had burnt practically the entire city, including 450 churches. The Russian forces were beseiging Moscow but could not take it back from the Poles The Poles imprisoned the lawful Patriarch Hermogen. He would not play ball with them. They put Ignatius on the Patriarch's throne. He serves the Liturgy for Easter. He commemorated the Polish King as head of the Russian State. That same afternoon he fled Moscow on a fast horse to Polish Lithuania.

Put this in the American situation. The Iraqis take control of New York and bomb and burn most of the city. They imprison the Catholic Archbishop of New York and place one of their lickspittles on the cathedra as Cardinal Archbishop of New York. He celebrates Easter Mass and commemorates Saddam Hussein as head of the United States.

I am interested in the source for saying that the Poles had put Ignatius as Patriarch? I thought that it was Feodor II of Russia, the son of Boris Godunov, who had appointed him patriarch, with the consent of the Orthodox bishops, on June 30, 1605? It seems to me quite unlikely that the Poles would endorse a fierce opponent of Catholicism, such as Ignatius was at that time of June 30, 1605.

I cannot find the same site where I obtained that information last night but here is something similar

"A History of Russian Christianity Volume II the Patriarchal Era Through Tsar"

Oh here we go!! More of that revisionist Catholic white-wash history!!....Really!!

M.

Mary,Maybe you never studied Russian history at university. I have a degree in Russian & East European History from a secular university.These are just historic facts about Russian history, not revisonist anti-Catholic history.

Oh here we go!! More of that revisionist Catholic white-wash history!!....Really!!

M.

Mary,Maybe you never studied Russian history at university. I have a degree in Russian & East European History from a secular university.These are just historic facts about Russian history, not revisonist anti-Catholic history.

That's wonderful Orest!! I wish I had your language skills. There are basic facts that are indisputable! I am trained in history and philosophy and theology, but a different part of the world for history. My Russian history has been taught to me ad hoc by a Russian Catholic...that is not to say I am anything BUT a neophyte!!

Oh here we go!! More of that revisionist Catholic white-wash history!!....Really!!

M.

Mary,Maybe you never studied Russian history at university. I have a degree in Russian & East European History from a secular university.These are just historic facts about Russian history, not revisonist anti-Catholic history.

That's wonderful Orest!! I wish I had your language skills. There are basic facts that are indisputable! I am trained in history and philosophy and theology, but a different part of the world for history. My Russian history has been taught to me ad hoc by a Russian Catholic...that is not to say I am anything BUT a neophyte!!

M.

I am referring only to the historical facts about the hierarch mentioned as "Patriarch Ignatius".

That was because he was an absolute tow rag and beneath contempt. Moscow had been conquered by the Poles. The Poles had burnt practically the entire city, including 450 churches. The Russian forces were beseiging Moscow but could not take it back from the Poles The Poles imprisoned the lawful Patriarch Hermogen. He would not play ball with them. They put Ignatius on the Patriarch's throne. He serves the Liturgy for Easter. He commemorated the Polish King as head of the Russian State. That same afternoon he fled Moscow on a fast horse to Polish Lithuania.

Put this in the American situation. The Iraqis take control of New York and bomb and burn most of the city. They imprison the Catholic Archbishop of New York and place one of their lickspittles on the cathedra as Cardinal Archbishop of New York. He celebrates Easter Mass and commemorates Saddam Hussein as head of the United States.

I am interested in the source for saying that the Poles had put Ignatius as Patriarch? I thought that it was Feodor II of Russia, the son of Boris Godunov, who had appointed him patriarch, with the consent of the Orthodox bishops, on June 30, 1605? It seems to me quite unlikely that the Poles would endorse a fierce opponent of Catholicism, such as Ignatius was at that time of June 30, 1605.

I cannot find the same site where I obtained that information last night but here is something similar

"A History of Russian Christianity Volume II the Patriarchal Era Through Tsar"

By the way if you are familiar with Shubin's recent books you will know that he is very anti-Russian Church.

Dear Father Ambrose: Thank you so kindly for this source of Shubin. It is really pretty interesting to read these and other details of Russian history. It does say though, that an ecclesiastical assembly at Uspenski Cathedral had unanimously chosen Ignatius as patriarch of Moscow. This version of the events says that this decision was made under pressure from the false Dimitri. It gives no indication of what Tsar Feodor had thought about it. At least, I didn't see it yet. Wiki says Ignatius was strongly anti-Catholic at the time, but i don't see anything about that here either. So there is misinformation somewhere along the line.

As for the elevation to patriarch, that was done with the consensus of all the Orthodox patriarchs of the time.

So the Orthodox patriarchs chose Ignatius as Patriarch of all Russia. I suppose at that time everyone thought him to be a sterling and excellent choice for the office and had only good things to say about his character and qualifications? And now since he was later converted by St. Josaphat to Catholicism, we only hear bad things about him and about St. Josaphat?

No, the Orthodox patriarchs elevated St. Job, who was already metropolitan of Moscow.

Ignatius was chose by the false Dmitry and installed by him: false praise from a false Czar for a false patriarch who went over to a false faith.

Wasn't the false Dimitry also Polish?

Orthodoc

LOL. Yes, rumor has it an illegitimate son of the Polish king. Since he was a loyal son of the Vatican (which should have been a clue), one wonders what he had to do with an allegedly Orthodox Patriarch crowning him.

There are some studies that suggest that the false Dimitri was not really false at all, but the actual son of Ivan the terrible. For one example, there is the book by Kostomarov: Kto byl pervy Lzedimitrij?According to Kostomarov, Demetrius was convinced that he was of royal origin, and when Shuiski said that he was not Ivan’s son, Demetrius summoned a assembly of Russia to look at these charges. Why would he have done this, if he were not convinced of his royal origin. And further, the assembly unanimously sentenced Shuiski to death, but Demetrius pardoned him. Why would Demetrius have pardoned his enemy Shuiski, unless Demetrius believed that the evidence that Shuiski had against him would not stand up?And further, there is an article in volume 60, number 4 of the Slavic Review: “Who Was Tsar Dmitrii?”“Chester DunningIn this article, Dunning challenges traditional scholarship concerning the identity and character of Tsar Dmitrii (reigned 1605¬06), better known as the "False Dmitrii"--the only tsar ever raised to the Russian throne by means of a military campaign and popular uprisings. Usually dismissed as a frivolous imposter who was despised by his subjects for being a tool of Polish intervention in Russia's Time of Troubles, Tsar Dmitrii turns out to have been a charismatic, well-educated warrior-prince who was revered by many of his subjects. Furthermore, he truly believed that he was the youngest son of Ivan the Terrible. This article deconstructs the legends and scholarship identifying Tsar Dmitrii as the lascivious and bloodthirsty monk-sorcerer, Grishka Otrep'ev and demonstrates that the faulty image of Tsar Dmitrii has been shaped by historians' overreliance on folklore and on the propaganda manufactured by Dmitrii's enemies. Dunning calls for a new biography of this mysterious and controversial ruler.”http://www.slavicreview.illinois.edu/indexes/vol60/abstracts4.html• Who Was Tsar Dmitrii? • Chester Dunning• Slavic Review, Vol. 60, No. 4 (Winter, 2001), pp. 705-729 • Published by: The American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies

You ought to read some of the documentation for the canonization of Ioasaphat Kuntsevich.

Read what the Roman Catholic Chancellor for Lithuania, Leo Sapiega, wrote of Josaphat. I won't post it here because it may ignite a firestorm but there was a dark and malevolent side to Josaphat acknowledged even by the Roman Catholic authorities of his time.

Irish Hermit,I would like to recommend the book, Saint Josaphat Kuntsevych: Apostle of Church Unity by Fr. Demetrius E. Wysochansky, OSBM. It is the most comprehensive book on the life of Saint Josaphat in English. Included are Saint Josaphat’s replies to Sapiega, denying any involvement in harming Orthodox Christians. Also, the book goes on to say that Sapiega severely punished those who killed Saint Josaphat and the people of Vitebsk felt they were being punished by God for the death of this holy saint.

17 executions IIRC. That the Polish state took out the stick isn't a suprise: the "Union," after all, was state policy, and Kuntsevich was still the King's man. Odd that if Vitebsk felt he was so holy, that it remained so Orthodox.

Quote

The book also quotes from the sworn testimonies given by eyewitnesses to Saint Josapahat's holiness during the canonization process. Included are the testimonies of Orthodox Christians who persecuted him and yet defended his holiness.

Since the Orthodox officially ceased to exist in 1592, very odd that they were around to be eyewitnesses and swear testimony. Could Orthodox legally give testimony, being non-existent? Or is this "Orthodox in communion with Rome?" The PL king only bent to reality in 1632, nearly two decades after the events. Was perjury for the beatification part of the deal to relegalize the Orthodox?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

As for the elevation to patriarch, that was done with the consensus of all the Orthodox patriarchs of the time.

So the Orthodox patriarchs chose Ignatius as Patriarch of all Russia. I suppose at that time everyone thought him to be a sterling and excellent choice for the office and had only good things to say about his character and qualifications? And now since he was later converted by St. Josaphat to Catholicism, we only hear bad things about him and about St. Josaphat?

No, the Orthodox patriarchs elevated St. Job, who was already metropolitan of Moscow.

Ignatius was chose by the false Dmitry and installed by him: false praise from a false Czar for a false patriarch who went over to a false faith.

Wasn't the false Dimitry also Polish?

Orthodoc

LOL. Yes, rumor has it an illegitimate son of the Polish king. Since he was a loyal son of the Vatican (which should have been a clue), one wonders what he had to do with an allegedly Orthodox Patriarch crowning him.

There are some studies that suggest that the false Dimitri was not really false at all, but the actual son of Ivan the terrible. For one example, there is the book by Kostomarov: Kto byl pervy Lzedimitrij?According to Kostomarov, Demetrius was convinced that he was of royal origin, and when Shuiski said that he was not Ivan’s son, Demetrius summoned a assembly of Russia to look at these charges. Why would he have done this, if he were not convinced of his royal origin. And further, the assembly unanimously sentenced Shuiski to death, but Demetrius pardoned him. Why would Demetrius have pardoned his enemy Shuiski, unless Demetrius believed that the evidence that Shuiski had against him would not stand up?

Saddam Hussein used to frequently call assemblies to show how popular he was. What he did was pull out opponents (who disappeared, everyone knew where) in front of a crowd he knew had control of. What use did the false czar have for Shuiski? There would lie your answer.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

You ought to read some of the documentation for the canonization of Ioasaphat Kuntsevich.

Read what the Roman Catholic Chancellor for Lithuania, Leo Sapiega, wrote of Josaphat. I won't post it here because it may ignite a firestorm but there was a dark and malevolent side to Josaphat acknowledged even by the Roman Catholic authorities of his time.

Irish Hermit,I would like to recommend the book, Saint Josaphat Kuntsevych: Apostle of Church Unity by Fr. Demetrius E. Wysochansky, OSBM. It is the most comprehensive book on the life of Saint Josaphat in English. Included are Saint Josaphat’s replies to Sapiega, denying any involvement in harming Orthodox Christians. Also, the book goes on to say that Sapiega severely punished those who killed Saint Josaphat and the people of Vitebsk felt they were being punished by God for the death of this holy saint.

17 executions IIRC. That the Polish state took out the stick isn't a suprise: the "Union," after all, was state policy, and Kuntsevich was still the King's man. Odd that if Vitebsk felt he was so holy, that it remained so Orthodox.

Quote

The book also quotes from the sworn testimonies given by eyewitnesses to Saint Josapahat's holiness during the canonization process. Included are the testimonies of Orthodox Christians who persecuted him and yet defended his holiness.

Since the Orthodox officially ceased to exist in 1592, very odd that they were around to be eyewitnesses and swear testimony. Could Orthodox legally give testimony, being non-existent? Or is this "Orthodox in communion with Rome?" The PL king only bent to reality in 1632, nearly two decades after the events. Was perjury for the beatification part of the deal to relegalize the Orthodox?

Reply: A very good question! Especially since not only was the Orthodox Church non-existent but to claim to be Orthodox was still considered an act of treason against the state. Did the Polish state grant some type of immunity to these people who suddenly admitted to being Orthodox?Did the Polish government validate testimony from people who were 'enemies of the state'?

Ref: The Council met in the city of Brest on October 6, 1596. In order to prevent a parallel Orthodox council in any of the numerious Orthodox Churches in the city, the now Uniate Metropolitan of Kiev sealed all Orthodox Churches on the day before the Council was to begin, except for the cathedral where the Council was to take place. The Orthodox, nevertheless, converged on Brest as well, with prince Ostrozhskii and his private army at the head. Failing to find an open church, and after waiting in vain for an invitation from the Uniates, they accepted an offer of a Protestant church school for a separate Orthodox Council. The Uniate Council passed a resolution excommunicating all the Orthodox clergy and laity participating in the Orthodox Council. The Orthodox in turn suspended all the clergy and lay participants in the Uniate Council and addressed a petition to the King, asking him to deprive "the traitors" of their dioceses and parishes. But the Polish King decided otherwise: his edict of October 15, LEGALIZED ONLY THOSE BYZANTINE RITE CHRISTIANS WHO JOINED THE UNIA; IT DECREED THE ORTHODOX CHURCH NULL AND VOID AND ALL ITS CLERGY EXCOMMUNICATED; WHILE CONTINUING MEMBERSHIP IN THE ORTHODOX CHURCH WAS DECLARED TO BE AN ACT OF TREASON AGAINST THE STATE.

Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.

The Greek Catholic Church was outlawed by Soviets but it never ceased to exist.

are we finally getting an admission 1596=1946.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

They cannot be directly compared, the relation between Church and State differed completely.

yes, the PL King was the loyal son of the Vatican and doing its will, and the Russian Church was enduring presecusion while continuing the call of the wayward sheep home as had started in the days of SS. Alexis Toth and Kabaliuk.

So, still in denial?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Although my English isn't so good it try to say something in this topic.

The Union of Best could happen due to the conflict in Orthodoxy on the territory of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. In 1589 the Patriarch Jeremias II established the Moscow patriarchate, it made that Bishops lost their confidence to Ecumenical Patriarch and in the next year they refused to obey of the Patriarch of Constantinopole. Then they started their efforts to unite which Roman Catholic Church.It's not like the King of someone in "Rzeczypospolita (Comonwealth)" ordered to establish this Union but circumstances of those time allowed for such step. I wanted only to notice that standart of Orthodoxy before the Union was terrible (common poligamy of bishops, ignorancy of the Clergy etc). And in the matter of fact becouse of this agreement later the Rutheanian Orthodoxy in the person of Peter Mogila climbed to the top. If someone is interested. below is link to my blog and there is a short repord of feast of Josaphat Kuntsevych (Jozafat Kuncewicz) from Warsaw (Nov 2008) (unfortunately in Polish ) http://christianos.pl/?p=1013